The argument is not about lowering standards. No one favors that. In fact, those who advocate unlinking membership from certification have also spoken in support of protecting educational standards. The argument, I suggest, is about our differing assumptions and predictions. We are dealing with beliefs and fears, with varying degrees of optimism and pessimism—with opinions, not with facts. We differ mainly in what we think will happen if certification is no longer required for full membership in our association. It is my belief that more analysts will participate in and benefit from our programs. Their participation should only strengthen psychoanalysis as a profession. But that is an opinion, and I have no more proof for that prediction than do those who predict the demise of all quality standards.
We do, however, have some suggestive data to inform our predictions about the effect that unlinking will have on the number of members seeking certification. The survey conducted by the Ad Hoc Committee on Membership and Organization (CMO) asked why people do not apply for certification. As a member of that committee, I have looked again at those responses, which can be grouped into three broad categories: personal, procedural, and philosophical/political. Personal reasons will not likely change with unlinking. The procedural concerns were addressed by the CMO, which made recommendations for easing the process of certification, changes that can be adopted with or without unlinking.
“Someone could be certified (a lifetime bodge) without ever having done any analytic work beyond those control cases.”
Unlinking could, however, have an effect on those who do not apply for philosophical/political reasons. There is resentment that graduation from an institute approved by the American is not sufficient eligibility for full membership in that organization. It has been openly acknowledged by some of our leaders that certification of individuals is used to check on the quality standards of the institutes and that without a sufficient number of people seeking certification (their prediction of the effect of unlinking) the Committee on Institutes would have to revert to a more authoritative stance in its site visits with institutes. Consequently, some people consequently feel that certification is meaningless for them and that they are being (mis)used for other purposes.
What does being certified mean, then? For some people there is intrinsic educational value in the process; others see it as a required step in becoming a training analyst. But it can mean as little as having been graduated from an approved institute, after working with only three analysands under close supervision and writing up those cases, possibly with extensive coaching and strategic rewriting. Someone could be certified (a lifetime badge) without ever having done any analytic work beyond those control cases. And yet we imply that it means more than graduation because there has been review at the national level. I suggest that our organization bears some responsibility for the perception that the certification process is an arduous and meaningless exercise imposed for other purposes.
The CMO has concentrated on making the process less arduous. I believe that that is the wrong emphasis. If certification is weakened in order to induce more people to seek it, it will become even less meaningful. Rather than making it less rigorous, we should make it more meaningful. Rather than basing certification on the same criteria for graduation (only this time judged by those unknown who would not be swayed by local pressures), certification could be more meaningful if it were based on measures of continued professional development beyond graduation.
Once certification is not required for full membership, there will be no need to rush it. It might, for example, be delayed three or four years and include written reports of two analytic cases begun since graduation that have reached the mid-phase, along with a terminated control case. The evaluation might also include an oral discussion of the cases and related theoretical issues. Such a method would enhance the intrinsic education and growth value of the certification process; it would eliminate the cloud of political manipulation that discredits the value of certification in the eyes of many; and it would become a real goal of advanced attainment.
To those who fear that few will seek certification if they no longer “have to” in order to become voting members, I answer that few now go through the process only in order to vote. To those who fear that our organization will decline in quality, I offer the reminder that everyone who would be eligible for voting membership then is eligible for associate membership now. We would not be taking in a new class of members, only making them eligible for full membership. To those who fear that, given the vote, noncertified members would vote down standards, I suggest that that is an unsubstantiated opinion, which might or might not prove to be true. But that possibility will not be tested anyway, since the proposed by-laws amendment will limit voting on all matters having to do with Board functions to certified members.
As a scientific association, we have matured beyond rigid adherence to orthodoxy and have moved into an exciting ferment of diversity and open debate. The Committee on Institutes has evolved a mature attitude toward site visits of institutes as respectful, collegial consultations; and we are about to take a major step toward trusting local institutes to make their own judgments about qualifications of nonmedical clinical applicants. Only in the area of evaluating the qualifications of our own graduates and their suitability for membership in our association do we seem stuck in an old mode of fear and pessimism, of rigidity and mistrust, and we cling to the safety promised by a collective, central superego. Isn't it time for the ego ideal of pleasure in achievement and identification with ideals to become the motivator, rather than the punitive control of an angry internalized parent?